May 22, 2011

Timmy, Timmy. You have thrown your hat into the 2012 Presidential Election ring. Grats for that, but I don’t know. You were elected governer of Minnesota, as a social moderate, in that “Blue State”. You then conveniently adopted a religious rights position, as well as your shifting ‘right’ on abortion and LGBT rights. All this just in time for your unsucessful attachment to the 2008 Presidential nominee John #McCain – as his veep runner. I’m not sure how that “glitch” will play for the “big ‘ol boys” investment clique. After all, they seem to always want a return on their gracious gifts. It’s not you, mind you, it’s that numbers-crunching thing that always gets in the way – nothing personal.

I do have to tell you also, Timmy, that #POTUS is sort of a step up from “veep candidate wannabe”. Should you press yourself upon the voters, what kind of hat do you intend to wear for the sake of the “moderates’? Heck, you might not hold too much credibility among conservatives and moderates alike – you know – they not being sure, of just who you are, and all that nonsense. One last silly thing. I wonder how you will “ignite passion” among the electorate. You just don’t seem to have any of that – well – you know. Perhaps your “T-PAW faux hockey shirt will do the trick.

This writing is strictly an opinion, and to that we, if Americans, are all so entitled, under the Constitution of the United States of America.

May 15, 2011

There needs to a self-imposed law for “cable news outlets”, that forbids them from showing us those repetitive “short shots” of accompanying video file-footage when reporting on STALE news. You know, the kinds of video clips where, apparently, the camera people cannot focus on a subject for more than twenty seconds. These “gems” are later fed to us as though they were rare works of art. But after only the first few hundred viewings, its: “this dog don’t hunt” time.

I now live in fear that we will see some exciting shots of a flood gate spilling streams of water, into some spillway – for ever and ever. I mean, I feel sadness, and my heart goes out to those living within the flood plains of the Mississippi River, for all that they are going through – but for God’s sake – we /understand/ that water is flowing through that damned spillway.

Worse, is when there is a topical discussion taking place in a news studio, and the producers have only about 20 seconds of “related” video on hand. Somehow, they feel they have the critical, professional duty to play a loop of it, in a box, ad nauseam. How could we not be enthralled over the very sight of it – no less the report, for that matter. And, to that matter, the “guests” are most likely just shouting at each other the entire time.

Every time some fool on FOX, CNN, or MSNBC even mentions the word ‘Osama’, you can bet the farm, you will see that idiot walking up the rocks, and down the rocks – over and over and over. Ten years later, we /still/ see Bin Laden examining his trusty AK-47 , (with a keen lack of interest equal to ours). It actually makes me yearn to watch “ACTIVON” commercials over and over and over – to relieve the pain. Powerful Pain Relief, indeed.

Given the strangeness of the Obama Administration, don’t count out anything. Given too, all the strangeness surrounding the killing of Osama Bin Laden, it is difficult not to dream up and consider alternative situations of how he came to suddenly die in Pakistan.

One alternative (and this is purely a fictional surmising) is that the compound was constructed by US with full knowledge of Pakistani Government. The purpose of this compound was to house Osama in the event of his capture. The thought is it would be a secluded spot, and would be needed to collect terrorist intelligence via interrogation. If a capture did not materialize, well, Pakistan would have a few more buildings nearby to its existing military academy.

There was another, just as important, reason for the compound. In no way would bringing Osama to the US be a good thing for the Obama administration. There would be no end to distraction or criticisms for this or that.

So, consider that this /did/ happen: Osama was indeed captured, at a place yet unknown, via some intelligence, or perhaps a reward seeker. He was then secreted to the prepared compound along with family and whomever, in tow. There was no way they could be allowed to be left behind, since the mission was to interrogate Osama “quietly”.

The ready compound was built and maintained in the lowest possible profile. It was as low-key as twelve-foot walls, topped with barbed wire, could be considered low-key. But, that was just something that had to be dealt with best as possible. Consider too, the lack of utilities or mail box, or garbage collection. Perhaps that was a CIA blunder to not have the compound “residents” appear to be living as normal (though eccentric) a life as could be constructed. If Osama were the actual holder of the compound, he may, most certainly, have opted for at least electric service. Perhaps, in its tending to the tightness of security, the CIA did not allow, that outward appearances would themselves be an attention-getter. And, Bin Laden may not have been that detail-conscious overall, but would most likely have relied on his simply staying out of sight, deep inside the walls – yes, with electric, a place for mail, and sanitized garbage to be put out for pick up.

At some point, sufficient terrorist information was gotten , and disposing of Bin Laden became the issue. Some foot-dragging took place over how and what to do with Osama, and time ticked. (Now it gets nefarious) Consciously or unconsciously, the Obama admin started looking at this “outstanding issue” as an opportunity. In this scenario, the current state of the President’s elected term made for the perfect time. Now, what to do. It might be assumed that bringing Osama to the US would not be a good thing for many reasons. A trial could open a ‘can of worms’. Or perhaps more likely, there was a chance the whole scheme of hiding Osama would come into question once Osama came under the protection, and advice of, legal representation.

The easiest way then, was to “whack” him. Obviously, the circle argued the points of this. There were differing reports of some disagreement A sense of this confusion was “leaked” from the “war room” even as the “nod” to the Seal mission was eventually given. Now, again, the military was/is clean in this. This is all theory, and continuing: The CIA would be the ones who brought Osama to the compound. They kept him there and interrogated him for quite a while. Then, just, and I mean, just before the Seal team arrived, the CIA exited with Osama (et all) left in a daze. Before they could make sense of anything, they suddenly faced the “surprise” of the Seal incursion. Certainly, the CIA would have no qualms about doing what was needed to do what was needed. The military, rightfully, keeps clean throughout, since they dutifully performed their mission as ordered – honestly unaware of what had just transpired.

Another point. Was the time spent training to breach the “Bin Laden compound” a measure of how long Osama was at the compound? Of course, plus probably a few months. In effect, Osama was grabbed by the CIA, some time passed. It was also decided to have the Seals train for an assault of the compound in order that there be a contingency plan in place. At that point in time, it may not have yet been decided what the outcome for Osama would be, but they may have thought it important that the Seals know the ‘lay of the land’. This was accomplished by satellite surveillance. The CIA would have carefully controlled human traffic inside the compound, feeding the “birds” above what they wanted. Nothing unusual showed that would raise questions to authenticity of the target compound. This kept the number of those involved in the plan to a minimum.

The outcome of the compound witnesses is largely unknown, but it probably wasn’t pleasant outcome. As for the courier that was mentioned in the official version? He was not followed around, nor did he lead the CIA to the compound. After all, they had it built. The courier may not have even existed, or at least not in the time frame, as it was explained. “He” just conveniently tied up a loose link to the compound.

And Pakistan? All of this supposed indignation and outrage was just for show, and for the edification of the Pakistanis. The government was well paid for that show too. Most surely, there will be no retraction demands of foreign aid to them. In fact, shortly there may more aid forthcoming. As far as tension with Pakistan? Our relationship is probably more solid now, than ever.

A last point to make. Just as with the code-breakings of WWII, it could never be let known that Osama was interred for questioning. His disappearance from where he was hiding may have been made to look like he was killed on the spot, and the body taken away. There may well have been some bodies left at that scene, to be later discovered by accomplices – with no want or way to report an apparent death scene of their comrade. along with the removal of Osama’s corpse.

This writing is opinion and/or a work of fiction and in no way presumes actual actions or any wrong-doing by any of the listed parties. All references to persons or supposed agencies is fictional, coincidental, and should not be construed as real.

April 22, 2011

There is big trouble on the horizon for America, and $6.00 per gallon gasoline is the least of it. But gas spikes may very well be the trigger that culminates in a “perfect storm” of problems that could prove to be horrific for the USA, to say the least.

But first the gas issue:

According to many predictions, we could be seeing six dollar per gallon gasoline before the year ends. Last time we faced average costs of $4.00pg, the whole country cut back on use, and gas prices fell back to a more normal $1.87per gallon or so.

But, cutting back on gas use will not help us this time. With a forecast for gas to be ‘one third again’ higher than the $4.00 level of 2007, it is obvious that Americans will be forced to be even more frugal – – all to no avail. It should be noted that the $4.00 price came before the stock market plunge and the banking,Wall Street and, and mortgage problems. We used “bail-outs” to help right-the-course. But, the country fell into the recession from which we are still trying to dig out.

The US is again in a gas crisis, but this time, there will be no rising from it. Cutting back on gas use will not lower the price because there is no shortage of gas this time. In fact, there is a glut of oil at the moment. The chief pluralistic reason driving less won’t help is because the value of the dollar is being devalued by our government and that big bank, The Federal Reserve.

We have lessened our buying power. We are broke, and we will have no money to create nonsensical “bail-outs” this time. Being broke, along with having your money worth less because of it, is never a wonderful thing.

The value of the dollar is now at all time low against many world currencies including the important EURO, and each time the dollar loses some of its value OPEC raises the price of crude oil. This is due to the fact that OPEC uses the dollar as currency for oil, so when the dollar plunges, OPEC raises prices of oil accordingly. The saddest part is, there is no oil or gas shortage. No glut of oil will help the US this time. It is simply a matter of what our dollar will buy – or more accurately, what it won’t buy. If OPEC sees the dollar does not get them the profit they want, they will cut back on production in order force the prices to rise, and we can only get less for our dollar. It is a vicious cycle.

For many workers, cutting back on gas use is not an option. Growing numbers of families are already at the point where, after paying for necessary expenses, there is not one cent more. Many will simply find that they cannot afford to get to work. Consider this example:

A commuter drives 50mi to get to work. Gas is priced at $6.00pg His/her car gets 14mpg. That calculates to 3.57 gallons of gas needed for the drive. This comes to a cost of $21.42 to get to work. The drive back home doubles it to $42.86 a day just to get to work and back. Put into other terms, the first $5.36 of each hour of pay in an eight hour day goes directly to gasoline! A staggering 214.29 per 40hr week.

Granted, in actuality, everyone does not commute 100mi per day, nor does each car get only 14mpg, nor does everyone commute alone, and some are even able use mass transit. But, no matter how you look at it, gasoline takes a large chunk of available funds – and more and more workers have nothing available to give toward higher gas prices, as it is.

Some may be forced out of work because they cannot afford to go there. And, given the shortages of jobs, looking for work closer to home may not be an option. Mass transit availability may not work either. Hence, more become unemployed, there is less tax revenue, more welfare, less company profit, and on and on.

And on it goes:

It is not just the gas price alone. We know that prices in general are related to increasing gas costs, and will all rise in tandem. Add to that, the fact that a large majority feel that the US is headed in the wrong direction, and the outlook for the quality-of-life getting any better is bleak.

This fuel issue we are facing could become a catalyst for anything from a major depression to an all out revolution in America. Grim indeed. The mood of the country is already stressed and the situation could get very ugly in short order, with hell-to-pay for those targeted as complicit in causing extended and ever-increasing grief. Anger, either just, or misdirected, along with related social unrest, is difficult to predict. Many grow sickeningly tired of hearing what they consider to be buck-passing, lies, or outright thievery – all at their cost. Excuses for the state of the economy are wearing thing and the government is finding it harder to explain away lack of corrective action.

The low-wage, and middle-class workers who have shouldered America’s workload are, to say the least, fed up with having their endless demands for relief going unheard. They are continually asked to sacrifice more, while costs go up and wages go down.

If you happen to be one of those who sit comfortably, somewhere above the middle-class, you may not be “home free” this time around. It would be unwise to think that you will be affected only to the point where you are mildly inconvenienced – and then all will pass.

Should $6.00 gas get us to a “chain reaction” point it may become a very difficult nationwide situation, and by the time it is realized, the system will have killed the “golden geese.” They are those who produced the few American-made tangible products that have paid for, and kept the rich and lazy propped up. They will have lost their jobs for one reason or another. It will then be too late for you too.

In this light, it would be very foolish indeed, for the powers-that-be to assume that a breaking point of Americans cannot be reached. It would be a mistake to confuse the good and tolerant nature of the American people with that of being easy marks – to be bled time and time again. Everyone has a limit to how much pain and abuse one can stand before exploding. And, exploding social situations are likely to be contagious and spread.

Where this might end would be anyone’s guess. But the word “revolution” was a word well-known, just prior to America’s successful bid for independence from an intolerable situation. It could happen again. In the words of the late rocker Janis Joplin (Me & Bobby McGee): “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

I am not, with this writing, in any way approving or fomenting revolution. It is opinion, and I am just calling it “like I see it”. Also, it is a shame that such a declaration even /has/ to be made in this country. But, I can tell you this much: If Marie Antoinette were alive again today, she would be very, very, afraid – and rightfully so.

Since January 25th, I have followed the unfolding crisis in Egypt almost continually. The Mid-Eastern media network Al Jazeera has provided live streaming coverage of events (when allowed to do so, by the Mubarak regime). USA cable networks shoot live video interspersed with commentary. I have read many reports and assorted opinion. The chaos in the cities and towns across Egypt has caught the attention of the whole world. Besides the newsworthy quality of the events, the volume and speed of information exchange has had a lot to do with the widespread general awareness of the situation. In particular, the streets of Cairo have become a focal point of much of the media.

But what has come to amaze me within these world-reaching events, has been my learning about, and the monitoring of the endless stream of information moving across the “Twitter Network”. (Until very recently, I had only heard of this “tweet” thing. I must have been the last hold-out on Earth.)

It has shown itself to be the perfect instant-communications tool for the relating of what what has been happening at street-level. This, especially within, and nearby to a public square in Cairo. Appropriately, it is named Midan Tahrir, which translates in Arabic to: “Liberation Square”. Tahrir has become a center point for the protesters to gather, as well as the symbolic base for the anti-government protests taking place in that city.

In a time when the internet and mobile phone service was almost totally cut-off by the Mubarak regime, “twitting” became the normal method of getting vital instant information out of, and into Egypt. It had become the “chat-line” if you will, among the anti-government protesters.

Now, by using the term chat, I am not in any way intending to appear to take the situation in Egypt as less than very serious. But rather, I use it to point out how very much twittering and chatting are similar. Chat lines are the way that the younger generations communicate in normal times today via the internet. This chat-type thing in the form of twitters, has become the best or only way for them to evade Mubarak’s information crackdown.

To me, it occurs that there is another aspect of this twitter surge (especially as used among the younger protesters), that may not be realized or considered by many. It calls to my mind, a striking similarity between the twitters and the way some virtual-reality games are “chatted” and played by countless younger people around the globe over the internet.

In the minds of a generation where growing up, firstly with video games, then online fantasy games being quite the norm, how would they be expected to react when faced with a real life, and dangerous, situation? Would they tend to use the tools they have learned, albeit of the virtual kind? In effect, they may today, be recreating in “RL” (real life) the strategies and styles of the games they have learned to play-act so fluently online.

Often these games are “capture the flag” types of things. Usually, there is an elaborate setting of backgrounds and scenarios, the gathering of causes, an equipment outfitting, weapon-wielding, aligning with allies, and then – repetitive fighting. Occasionally a “PK” (player kill) happens – replete with winning side or player-character chest-thumping, and the losing side making threats of revenge.

Another integral part of the online gaming experience is the “RP” (role play) that is coincidental to the fighting. There is usually a detailed description of the battle and/or death that took place, including the various arguments and reasoning leading up to it. And, after the fact, there is the customary comforting by friends and supporters (similar to many twitters I have read). There are also threats of retaliation (also twitted), with new rounds of fighting being the inevitable outcome.

This gaming can be seen to be analogous to the current Cairo situation, where several protesters were killed (RL) recently. This, sadly, during rock-throwing incidents. The fighting took place on a small ramp leading onto a bridge that crosses the Nile River. There have been back-and-forth battles there over the last several days. One group charges at the other and hurls rocks. The other group responds in kind. It becomes a “capture the flag” type of senseless battle.

Some older-lived among us may remember and be reminded of the war in Vietnam where almost endless assaults took place on a mortar-ruined piece of slope dubbed “Hamburger Hill”. It seems few knew of any logical reasoning for the senseless assaults, as US troops were repeatedly ordered upward and onward, to lay claim to this worthless hill. But just as surely as it was taken, the Viet Cong would retake it. This was “capture the flag” taken to a RL extreme. That episode is well-remembered because it was an exception of an era, rather than the perceived norm that the virtual gaming experience connotes today.

For all intents (and this is only for topical generalization), some of the protesters in Cairo may be subconsciously playing “IC” (in-character) a virtual reality game in their minds, with the only difference being that the setting, characters, equipment, and weapons are REAL! I do not assume here to question or judge their motives, or the virtues of their cause. That is for another subject. However, whatever their reasoning, it is the methodologies which they have been employing so far, that are noteworthy. Their actions are amazingly alike those actions that take place on the virtual reality games. They may, or may not be able to differentiate between the virtual, which they perceive as a norm, or the crushingly real.

Of course, and praying otherwise, the hard facts of life may come thundering down upon them in the form of RL tank fire. The protesters would do well to be “actually” prepared and to realize that they may “actually” be PK’d at the next moment……..and there will be no “play-over”. Virtual reality can be made to seem very, very real – in some to greater degree than in others. But virtual gaming can become addictive. With enough exposure, it could possibly affect the way that real situations are perceived by some, and how those situations are addressed.

(note: This piece is a discussion of societal trends as perceived by the writer and in no way is intended to demean any specific person or group.)